More at the link: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...e (l.a. times - europe)&utm_source=feedburner Sucks what the Iranian government is doing. What sucks more is that only Iranian civilians suffer from these measures as the government will somehow pass the majority of the cost down to the people. I don't think there is a problem with Iran having nuclear weapons. I believe the problem lies with the current Iranian regime having nuclear weapons. With that in mind, I'm not sure if it's fair to the people of Iran that they will suffer for an unfairly elected leader. To be clear, I know that it is bad for the current regime to have a nuclear weapon. However, I'm sympathizing with the people, especially since they tried everything in their power just a year go to remove the current regime. Things are bleak in Iran right now. The youth are really losing their way - widespread prostitution, incredible amount of drug and alcohol abuse, people willing to do anything for a buck. Good people dealing drugs, even though they are morally against doing so. It really kills me to see these things happen. People drinking pure alcohol (99%) and going blind, snorting detergent thinking/hoping it's cocaine. They're very resilient people. You can tell when you go there that they are descended from a great civilization. I don't know how to explain it - they just seem to know how things work, how to develop, how to slow down, how to save, how to spend, how to talk, how to behave, etc. Great people and it's sad that most of the world will only know them as the Mullahs on TV rather than a people of non-Islamic, non-Arab, non-Middle Eastern, and non-violent culture. If you ever get a chance to go, I advise you to go.
their neighbors have nukes and israel and the u.s. continually threaten to use them. cant really blame iran for wanting them too. pakistan has nukes and a much more unstable government and they have provided nuclear technology to north korea, but we still give all this military/economic aid to them. israel and pakistan dont even belong to the non-proliferation treaty and our government supports them. and iran has never attacked us or been a threat to us - but we have a pretty bad history w/ them - we overthrew a democratically elected government in the 50's and installed a brutal dictator who killed/disappeared about 250k people. we supported saddam when he went to war w/ iran (we also covertly sold weapons to the iranians and used the profits to support terrorists in latin america, but thats a different thread).
From what I can tell, the sanctions amount to a mild slap on the wrist and are nothing for anyone to crow about. Secretly, Iran is probably pleased and thinking, "this is it?" Meanwhile, their work building atomic weapons goes on. In my opinion.
Then you think wrong. The problem IS Iran having nuclear weapons under ANY regime, the current regime just makes the offense that much worse. Arab regimes in the region, not to mention Turkey, will not stand for a nuclear Iran, period. Iran goes nuclear, so will Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi. That changes the entire dynamic in the region and increases the likelihood that a new era of 'cold wars' between the Arabs and the Iranians takes hold over the entire region, which will be devastating to everyone. Proxy wars are no fun, and Iran's regime absolutely and undeniably has sinister plans involving their agenda in the region, the Arabs might be exaggerating it but they are certainly not making it up. I am afraid, again, you are mistaken here. Most indications are that the nuclear program is overwhelmingly popular in Iran, and I would guess that most Iranians would also support Iran joining the nuclear club. If that is not the case, please correct me with hard numbers, but I think there is at least some circumstantial evidence that there is popular support for what the regime is doing. It makes sense, really, it is a matter of national pride, and Iranians are extremely nationalistic, and strong nationalists like to brag about how big a penis they have. So assuming this is the case, and Iranians do support the nuclear program, then I think it would be fair that they too are asked to share the burden of responsibility for the sanctions. Removing the regime does not really speak to the real point of contention with the West and Iran's neighbors, and those are nukes. Arab regimes, and certainly Israel, would not care one bit if a democratic Iran was in place, but they still insisted on having nuclear weapons. It is a regional security and stability issue, the regime only makes it that much more urgent to stop the Iranian nuclear program. I am guessing you have seen these things primarily in Tehran and other progressive centers in Iran. If I was a member of the Green movement, I would probably be on crack too, things look very bleak for them and the regime seems to have consolidated its power even more using the last semi-uprising as an excuse to crack down and showcase their ability to function as an efficient police state. Mission accomplished, unfortunately for Iranians, or at least some of them, which I assume is probably anywhere from 30% to 50% of the popular.
I disagree. For no other reason than the base assumption is that Iranians are unstable, Arab-hating, Jew-Hating or Sunni-hating people. If they were somewhat like that in the distant past, I assure you that they're not like that anymore. The average Iranian has no animosity towards Arabs, Jews, or Sunnis. It's an unfair image given to them. If there is a democratically elected responsible government in place, then I think they have the right to develop nuclear technology. Either that, or disarm the whole region (Pakistan & Israel specifically). I think we just agree to disagree here. Sovereignty includes the right to defend yourself and, IMO, that right should only be taken away from those who have shown themselves to be irresponsible. Also, I'll add that it's closer to 75% with another 10-15% happy to go along with any government that doesn't feed the rich at the expense of the poor.
Really, the only reason I would ever go is to nail some fine Persian tail, and live to tell about it.
Some Persian girls are quite pretty. I saw one in Manchester the day before the Bayern Champions League match there, she worked in Rio Ferdinand's restaurant where we had dinner. She kind of looked like Kim Kardashian, but prettier.
The problem at this point is that it has turned into a personal showdown - the fact that it is a conflict between Iran and the West is much bigger than the actual details of the conflict. If any Iranian politician caved into demands at this point, they would be forever be the p***y who put his tail between his legs and sold out Iran to "the Zionists". (And any American president who surrendered would be forever known as the next "Neville Chamberlain".) It would be less career killing for an Iranian politician to force a military conflict resulting in a massive defeat and another "imposed war" type massive body count on the Iranian people. You can see some of the sentiment echoed in this thread where some seem view the entire conflict exclusively in the terms of "America trying to keep Muslims servile." When you get into more of a hardcore Iranian nationalist echo chamber, that sentiment is overwhelmingly universal. It is an unspoken conspiracy between the 10% of jingoists on both sides who actually prefer total war to a compromise that meets everybody's goals.
Iranians don't believe that the "Zionists" are doing this to them . In fact, Iranians have a game where they bet on how many things Khamenei will blame on zionists at friday sermons. lol
Honestly, you'd be missing out. There are few countries in the world with 4 full seasons and multiple terrains (snow, forest, jungle, desert, mountain), gorgeous women, and hospitality. The parties in Tehran are also among the best in the world (since there aren't any clubs). If you getting hammered/stoned and having an unbelievable night out is your thing, it's a great scene. If I figure out how to post some pics from my computer (any advice?) I'll post some of what I'm talking about.
The people who are in favor of a fight tend to blame everything on the Zionists. If you want to get an idea what I'm talking about, I'd recomend the comments section of Uskowi on Iran as fairly representative. And Mr. Uskowi is fairly critical of Tehran. I've seen much more bunt comments on the Iranian defense websites. A couple of examples from Uskowi. On the international rejection of the Iran/Brazil/Turkey proposed intiative: [rquoter] The self-appointed "international community" is pushing Iran into a corner, while ignoring the diplomatic efforts of rising powers like Turkey and Brazil. The Zionist media has once again been successful in diverting attention from Gaza to the Iranian bogeyman. The simple fact is that the Zionist entity wants a divided and weakened region so they can maintain their oppression and occupation of Palestine. Iran is an obstacle to their hegemony and no matter how peaceful Iran is or its intentions, the Zionsits who control US policy will simply find another excuse. This is a NO BRAINER. However, the regional winds are not in either Zionism's or in US favor as the geo-political tectonic plates shift further radicalizing an already tense population who now have access to a variety of real-time information sources. By pushing Iran, the US is hastening its own demise. [/rquoter] On the question of why Lebanon abstained from the UN sanctions vote: [rquoter] Lebanese despite having a 70% Shia majority have the old French imperialist disproportinate government representation that gives the Zionist allied Maronites and the Wahhabi puppet Harriri greater say in the government. Eventually the Shia will take over Lebanon, it is only a question of time. The middle-east is undergoing rapid changes that favor Iran. The Lebanese abstention at the UNSC club does not represent the majority of Lebanese population. [/rquoter] At one point, I thought perhaps these people represented some sort of coordinated media operations. However, after being accused of being a "paid Mossad hasbara information soldier" for the thousandth time, I've rather come to the conclusion that that sort of thinking is simply too easy and convenient to be true. Now, I don't doubt your statement that the core of Iranians disagree with that sort of thought. But the ones who believe enough in the regime to troll the internet and post on websites defending it seem to embrace that sort of thinking.
and this was during the primaries in 08, but its pretty strong rhetoric coming from our current secretary of state.
There is a difference between threatening an attack and threatening retaliation. And saying, "I not going to promise to not use nukes under any circumstances" does not equal, "I'm going to nuke you." McCain's statements were stupid, but no less stupid than the stuff coming out of people in the Majlis who are speaking their own personal minds, not speaking for the government.
Bolded words are mine. In either scenario, the unspoken words remain the same: I have nukes, you don't. Saying "I'm not going to promise not to use nukes under any circumstances" is a threat. It's like your dad taking off his belt, he doesn't have to whip you, but the threat exists. jo mama's first post is what most Iranians think of when this topic comes up. If the US's goal was to pit the populace against the government - they have accomplished the exact opposite. This will be read as just ANOTHER thing the US has done to Iran, and the people will file in to support their country. If the US's goal was to force the hand of the government, they've failed there too. Three or four additional cuts won't be felt by an economy suffering 1000 broken bones.
Then the US has been threatening the whole world for 60 years. My god, who will do something about this reckless country that has threatened every single country in the world for 60 years straight??? To me there is a difference between saying, "If you attack me, I will fight back with everything I've got." and saying, "I'm going to attack you." This is why I don't consider the near weekly pronouncements by various Iranian defense officials about what Iran is going to do if attacked by the West to be "threats". But if you say they actually should be considered to be threats, then I guess the only logical course of action is to declare war on Iran right away for that sort of incessant threatening aggressive behavior.
